Search

Background UK CQUIN schemes encourage an improvement focus on a specific area of care. In 2019, CQUIN CCG1a: Improving the management of lower UTI in older people1 was adopted at the RUH resulting in increased alignment with UK guidance on diagnosis and treatment.2 Our aim was to investigate whether this improvement was sustained two years later. This would help inform quality improvement interventions prior to adoption of the 2022 CQUIN, CCG2: Appropriate antibiotic prescribing for UTI in adults aged 16+.3 Objectives Service evaluation of the UTI pathway including compliance with two of the CQUIN care processes for UTI diagnosis in patients age 65+ presenting to ED (not admitted): (i) diagnosis excludes use of urine dipstick in people aged 65+; and (ii) urine sample sent to microbiology as per UK guidance.2 Methods A search of the electronic patient record for key terms (Table 1) identified 6076 ED attendances for patients age 65+ between 1 August and 31 October 2021 of which 40 were identified with a primary diagnosis of UTI not requiring hospital admission. Paramedic, ED and Urgent Treatment Centre notes (paper and electronic) were reviewed in detail and information gathered regarding presence/absence of UTI symptoms aligned to diagnostic guidelines;2 presence/absence of urine dipstick test; and presence/absence of urine sample for culture and susceptibility testing. Findings were compared with identical trust data for patients (admitted and non-admitted) obtained during the 2019 CQUIN: Q1 April–June; Q2 July–September; Q3 October–December. During this period improvement interventions were implemented. Results See Table 2. Conclusions Following intensive staff education improved practice regarding urine dipstick testing and appropriate urine sampling in elderly patients with possible UTI was observed during the 2019 CQUIN period. Two years later this improvement had not been sustained. When planning interventions during the 2022 CQUIN,3 consideration should be given to a bundle of interventions including education, data feedback and systems improvement, for example, computerized decision support systems (CDSS) to embed sustained change.

Strategies to reduce antibiotic overuse in hospitals depend on prescribers taking decisions to stop unnecessary antibiotic use. There is scarce evidence for how to support these decisions. We evaluated a multifaceted behaviour change intervention (ie, the antibiotic review kit) designed to reduce antibiotic use among adult acute general medical inpatients by increasing appropriate decisions to stop antibiotics at clinical review.We performed a stepped-wedge, cluster (hospital)-randomised controlled trial using computer-generated sequence randomisation of eligible hospitals in seven calendar-time blocks in the UK. Hospitals were eligible for inclusion if they admitted adult non-elective general or medical inpatients, had a local representative to champion the intervention, and could provide the required study data. Hospital clusters were randomised to an implementation date occurring at 1-2 week intervals, and the date was concealed until 12 weeks before implementation, when local preparations were designed to start. The intervention effect was assessed using data from pseudonymised routine electronic health records, ward-level antibiotic dispensing, Clostridioides difficile tests, prescription audits, and an implementation process evaluation. Co-primary outcomes were monthly antibiotic defined daily doses per adult acute general medical admission (hospital-level, superiority) and all-cause mortality within 30 days of admission (patient level, non-inferiority margin of 5%). Outcomes were assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population (ie, excluding sites that withdrew before implementation). Intervention effects were assessed by use of interrupted time series analyses within each site, estimating overall effects through random-effects meta-analysis, with heterogeneity across prespecified potential modifiers assessed by use of meta-regression. This trial is completed and is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN12674243.58 hospital organisations expressed an interest in participating. Three pilot sites implemented the intervention between Sept 25 and Nov 20, 2017. 43 further sites were randomised to implement the intervention between Feb 12, 2018, and July 1, 2019, and seven sites withdrew before implementation. 39 sites were followed up for at least 14 months. Adjusted estimates showed reductions in total antibiotic defined daily doses per acute general medical admission (-4·8% per year, 95% CI -9·1 to -0·2) following the intervention. Among 7 160 421 acute general medical admissions, the ARK intervention was associated with an immediate change of -2·7% (95% CI -5·7 to 0·3) and sustained change of 3·0% (-0·1 to 6·2) in adjusted 30-day mortality.The antibiotic review kit intervention resulted in sustained reductions in antibiotic use among adult acute general medical inpatients. The weak, inconsistent intervention effects on mortality are probably explained by the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Hospitals should use the antibiotic review kit to reduce antibiotic overuse.UK National Institute for Health and Care Research.

More than 90% of patients with penicillin allergy recorded are found not to be allergic after formal allergy testing, and can safely tolerate penicillin.1 Patients with penicillin allergy recorded are often prescribed second-line antibiotics which are more costly,2 can be less effective, and associated with a greater risk of adverse reactions.3.

BackgroundStrategies to reduce antibiotic overuse in hospitals depend on clinicians taking decisions to stop unnecessary antibiotics. There is a lack of evidence on how support clinicians do this effectively. We evaluated a multifaceted behaviour change intervention (ARK) which aims to reduce antibiotic consumption in hospitals by increasing decisions to stop antibiotics at clinical review.MethodsWe performed a stepped-wedge, hospital-level, cluster-randomised controlled trial using computer-generated sequence randomisation of 39 acute hospitals to 7 calendar-time blocks (12/February/2018–01/July/2019). Co-primary outcomes were monthly antibiotic defined-daily-doses (DDD) per acute/medical admission (organisation-level, superiority) and all-cause 30-day mortality (patient-level, non-inferiority, margin 5%). Clusters were eligible if they admitted non-elective medical patients, could identify an intervention “champion” and provide pre-intervention data from February/2016. Sites were followed up for a minimum of 14 months. Intervention effects were assessed using interrupted time series analyses in each cluster. Overall effects were derived through random-effects meta-analysis, using meta-regression to assess heterogeneity in effects across prespecified factors. Trial registration was ISRCTN12674243.FindingsAdjusted estimates showed a year-on-year reduction in antibiotic consumption (−4.8%, 95%CI: -9.1%,-0.2%, p=0.042) following the ARK intervention. Among 7,160,421 acute/medical admissions, we observed a -2.7% (95%CI: -5.7%,+0.3%, p=0.079) immediate and +3.0% (95%CI: - 0.1%,+6.2%, p=0.060) sustained change in adjusted 30-day mortality. This mortality trend was not related to the magnitude of antibiotic reduction achieved (Spearman’s ρ=0.011, p=0.949). Whilst 90-day mortality odds appeared to increase over time (+3.9%, 95%CI:+0.5%,+7.4%, p=0.023), this was not observed among admissions before COVID-19 onset (+3.2%, 95%CI:-1.5%,+8.2%, p=0.182). Length of hospital stay was unaffected.InterpretationThe weak, inconsistent effects of the intervention on mortality are likely to be explained by the COVID-19 pandemic onset during the post-implementation phase. We conclude that the ARK-intervention resulted in sustained, safe reductions in hospital antibiotic use.FundingNIHR Programme Grants for Applied Research, RP-PG-0514-20015.Research in contextEvidence before this studyAcutely ill patients often need to receive antibiotics before full diagnostic information is available. Consequently, reducing overuse of antibiotics in hospitals requires clinicians to review and where appropriate, stop unnecessary antibiotic prescriptions. Evidence-based tools to support clinicians stop unnecessary antibiotics do not exist.We searched PubMed, with no language or date restrictions, on 31/January/2022 for clinical studies focused on improving antibiotic use for hospitalised adults using the terms “anti-bacterial agents therapeutic use” AND “antibiotic stewardship”. Among the 427 studies found, the great majority were uncontrolled evaluations of different approaches to education, decision support and feedback. These included one before-after study, which found no impact of unsupported clinician-led prescription review. Three small, hospital-level cluster-randomised trials were identified. One evaluated different approaches to feedback, one compared different hospital specialties and one found intense feedback to be effective. All were small and none considered clinical outcomes or sustainability. There is a need for research to deliver proven interventions ready for implementation into practice.Added value of this studyWe evaluated a multifaceted “Antibiotic Review Kit” (ARK) intervention to support prescribers to appropriately stop antibiotics at clinical review. ARK comprises a prescription decision-aid supported by a brief online training tool, guidance on implementation (including regular data collection and feedback) and a patient information leaflet. We found that the intervention was associated with a sustained reduction in hospital-level antibiotic use overall and of oral and narrow-spectrum antibiotics specifically. Weak trends were observed for 30-day mortality in opposite directions for immediate and sustained impact. Although there was a sustained increase in 90-day mortality after the intervention, this was only seen when analyses included patients admitted after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Taken together we conclude that these mortality effects are unrelated to the intervention.Implications of all available evidenceThe ARK intervention is safe and effective in reducing antibiotic use among adult medical hospital admissions. The tools used are now freely available for adoption into practice.